Seed Geometry in the Arecaceae

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see my comments and suggestions embedded in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your commentaries that have contributed to improve considerably the article.

Three questions were raised concerning Figures 4, 5 and 8. These figures are elaborated with images taken from different sources in the Internet and their purpose is to show the adjustment of seeds to different models, not to compare seed shape between the different species represented. Thus, different orientation in the photographs is not contrary to the reliability and accuracy of the process.

The legends to these figures have been modified to include information on seed orientation:

- For Figure 4 the orientation of the seeds is now given in the legend to the figure, Lines 284-286):

The seed of Iriartea deltoidea is oriented with the attachment of the peduncle in a frontal position. In the other seeds the place of attachment of the peduncle is in a lateral position.

- For Figure 5 the orientation of the seeds is now given in the legend to the figure, Lines 297-298):

The seed of Washingtonia filifera (bottom) is oriented with the attachment of the peduncle in a frontal position while in the other three seeds the attachment of the peduncle is in a lateral position.

-For Figure 8, the orientation of the seeds is now given in the legend to the Figure 8, Lines 354-356):

In C. macrocarpa the seed is orientated with the stem end in a central position, while the other seeds present a side view.

In response to this commentary:

Also, noted that the middle specimen look a typical circle with uniform radii all the around while the two (left and right) look to have non-uniform radii

The J index has been calculated and similarity with the squared circle is superior to 90% in all three seeds shown. For the seed in the middle J index equals 92.4.

Also, considering this remark and this annotation:

The authors must be consistent in selecting images of seeds since they are trying to tell us that their procedure is reliable and accurate

We have written now in the text the following (Lines 269-271):

Seeds of a species can fit to different models when observed from different point of view, and for this reason it is important to indicate the orientation in the images before proceeding to quantification with a given model.

Once indicated the orientation of the images there is no contradiction in presenting in these figures some images in a different orientation. The purpose of these images is not to compare the shape of seeds of different species but to show that their seeds may adapt well to a model, and that model may be useful for quantification of each particular species in a given orientation.

Another question was related to Table 3:

-Please provide information on the number attached to geometric figures (left column). the numbers in parentheses are not self explanatory.

The information has been given in table 3 (between lines 380-381).

Morphology has been changed to morphological in the actual line 419.

In relation with surface morphology the paragraph between lines 419 and 426 has been corrected according to the commentaries to include this important aspect and the reference to the article by Wada, S. and Reed, B.M. (Seed Coat Morphology Differentiates Blackberry Cultivars. J. Am. Pomol. Soc. 2010, 64, 152-161) that is now reference 49.

Reviewer 2 Report

This, in my estimation, is an important contribution to the field of plant taxonomy. Some of the proposed models and criteria for describing seed shape in the Arecaceae are novel, and it will be interesting to read works arising from their application. The manuscript is well written, The following minor observations are made:

• Space between 3.1. and A conceptual aspect (Line 135)
• Consider deleting 'Nevertheless'  so that the sentence starts from 'Plant organs'...… (Line 153)
• Check citations for consistency and uniformity (Line 513-639)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all your corrections and commentaries that have contributed to improve the article.

The space between 3.1. and A conceptual aspect (Line 135; actual line 138) has been corrected.

Consider deleting 'Nevertheless' so that the sentence starts from 'Plant organs'...… (Line 157). 'Nevertheless' has been deleted in this sentence.

Check citations for consistency and uniformity (Line 513-639). Corrected. Citations have been checked.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

all my concerns were addressed.